Military Costs as a Percentage of the Budget

[GlassArmonica]

So I'm starting with this link about what happens if you get rid of income tax:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/256/

That link claims that $150billion easily pays for 1 and 1/2 years of occupation and battle in Iraq. True? False?

I've heard Paul say that cutting back on unwise Imperial military expeditions could save us nearly $1 trillon a year. Is most of that money saved by shutting down Korea and Germany? What are the costs in the gulf (Iraq, Afghanistan, aircraft carriers, Iranian contingency plans, black ops, etc.)?

Just not sure where to go for intelligent discussion of these questions. Please help if you have links and info!

Thank you sincerely!

[Zippyjuan]

Removing the income tax would indeed get government income back to about the same levels they were ten years ago. The problem is how to get the spending to that level. There is some good discussion in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=107945

Our "Imperial expenditures" are no way one third of our budget.
The 2007 budget figures:
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...budget%2C_2007

Mr Paul has said he would not get rid of Social Security or Medicare (but allow people to opt out of paying into them) and you cannot forgo payments on the national debt so that does not leave much to take $1.2 trillion out of. How would you do it?

[CUnknown]

The 1 trillion a year number comes from shutting down all our bases overseas; coming home from everywhere, not just Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iraq war costs like 150+ billion a year or so, like you said, so that is 15% of the 1 trillion total. Afghanistan would be another huge chunk, and then shutting down our hundreds of bases all over the world would amount to the rest, apparently.

I assume that Paul would slash the Pentagon budget of $548.8 billion (a lot of that is spent overseas, I assume), and I think there are additional costs that aren't including in the budget we have listed there.

[jacmicwag]

The money for Iraq is coming from special funding in addition to the defense budget. Just saw a good article on this recently. Will link to it if I can find it again.

[Zippyjuan]

The money for Iraq is coming from special funding in addition to the defense budget. Just saw a good article on this recently. Will link to it if I can find it again.

That is correct. The funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been seperate apropriations and are not included in Federal budget figures.

[Zippyjuan]

The 1 trillion a year number comes from shutting down all our bases overseas; coming home from everywhere, not just Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iraq war costs like 150+ billion a year or so, like you said, so that is 15% of the 1 trillion total. Afghanistan would be another huge chunk, and then shutting down our hundreds of bases all over the world would amount to the rest, apparently.

I assume that Paul would slash the Pentagon budget of $548.8 billion (a lot of that is spent overseas, I assume), and I think there are additional costs that aren't including in the budget we have listed there.

The pentagon budget includes the moneys for our bases overseas. Even if you get rid of every penny spent on defense (and I don't think anyone is arguing that) you still need to cut half a trillion dollars more (or raise other taxes by that amount)

[CUnknown]

But the Pentagon budget probably does not include aid to Israel and dictatorships around the world. That is a significant amount of money as well every year.

[DaneKirk]

All I know and care about is that no matter who is elected President, they all have stated that they will modernize the military by making sure we have the needed funds, and increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. Say hello to more F-22's, F-35's, CV-22's, KC-X etc! I am not as bummed anymore.

By the way Hillary said in an article in Foreign Affairs that she would consider leaving a base open in Northern Iraq, anyone know that? I am 99.9% sure what one it would be since I have been to them all countless times.

[Zippyjuan]

But the Pentagon budget probably does not include aid to Israel and dictatorships around the world. That is a significant amount of money as well every year.

Foreign aid not included in the Defense budget is in the State Department budget. Some foreign aid is in the form of money, some in the form of things like food, medicines or weapons. Some is loans which are supposed to be used to buy things from the US like airplanes which helps jobs and the economy here. The loans may or may not be paid back.

This chart says that foreign aid was about $23 billion in 2006.
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/poli...oreign-aid.htm

According to Wiki, Iraq is now the biggest recipient of aid at an estimated $18 billion and Israel second at $2.6 billion. I can't find a total for the year yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAID

Again from Wiki, foreign military aid in 2001 was $4.5 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign..._United_States

[OKRonPaul]

It would take time. First step is to balance the budget, start paying down the debt. Freeze spending at current levels, cutting everything possible. Obviously ending the war, closing overseas bases is the quickest way to do that. The 367 billion for welfare would be tempting to cut deeply as well.

As we pay down the dept the 243 billion yearly interest payment shrinks. Over time the income from corporate taxes increases. As long as we keep the budget from growing after the initial drastic cuts, and pay off the dept as quickly as possible we'll reach a point where the income tax isn't needed.

[Matt Collins]

[Zippyjuan]

It would take time. First step is to balance the budget, start paying down the debt. Freeze spending at current levels, cutting everything possible. Obviously ending the war, closing overseas bases is the quickest way to do that. The 367 billion for welfare would be tempting to cut deeply as well.

As we pay down the dept the 243 billion yearly interest payment shrinks. Over time the income from corporate taxes increases. As long as we keep the budget from growing after the initial drastic cuts, and pay off the dept as quickly as possible we'll reach a point where the income tax isn't needed.

Well said. Balancing the budget first and then start to pay off the debt with the excess. You should not try to cut taxes until the debt is gone.

The closest we came in recent history was under President Clinton. It is the last time we had a balanced budget and even a surplus. Clinton wanted to put money towards the debt- he did get some money to go towards it: over $350 billion. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI.../clinton.debt/ The debt at that time was $5.7 trillion. Clinton also cut Medicaid and Medicare. Republicans in Congress wanted to give tax cuts out and the Democrats wanted to spend more. It was an election year you know- so hand out gifts in hopes of getting votes.

Then George Bush and the Republicans took over and spending shot up at the same time they offered tax cuts which has since added almost 80% to the debt since then. Clinton cannot claim that his budget policies were the reason for the surplus- that came mostly from the large tax revenues generated by the soaring stock market. And Bush cannot take all the blame since he had to deal with the collapse of the same market, but his tax cuts and spending increases definately added to the deficit.

I find it ironic that while the Republicans like to call the Democrats "Tax and Spend Liberals", budgets and deficits grow much more quickly under them- the allegedly fiscally conservative party. They just spend it on different things- more to the military while the Dems lean towards social programs. Frankly, I prefer it if they split the power- say one controls Congress and the other the White House. Makes it harder to spend money on things.

Ron Paul has repeatedly said he does not expect his goals to happen overnight. They are goals to work towards.